Using the 4 words "positive" (=add something) "negative" (=take something away) "reinforcement" (=encourage to repeat same or similar behaviour) and "punishment" (=discourage a certain behaviour) there are 4 ways to respond to your dog's behaviour.

Negative Reinforcement
Taking something away that your dog dislikes, for instance, on leash every time the dog moves closer to the handler the pressure from the leash is automatically released.

Negative Punishment
Oh, from the name this one sounds nasty! But what is it? Taking away something the dog likes in order to discourage a behaviour. So time outs, or when you jump up on me and I turn away and ignore you until you settle down, THAT is is negative punishment. Is it cruel? Maybe! In many situations it is extremely effective!

These are just examples, there are an endless selection of positive reinforcement, positive punishment, negative reinforcement and negative punishments that can be used, and certain ones will be most appropriate for certain situations, certain dogs, certain handlers, but I would consider a trainer more likely to be good if they use a combination of all 4 reactions.

Someone claiming to be a "positive" or "positive reinforcement" trainer? To me, they either don't know what positive means (and therefore have missed out on on the teachings of the very people who coined the term positive reinforcement in the first place) or are expressing a very narrow-minded approach that it is never appropriate to punish a dog, or to take anything away from them as a part of behaviour management.

Someone claiming to be a "positive" or "positive reinforcement" trainer? To me, they either don't know what positive means (and therefore have missed out on on the teachings of the very people who coined the term positive reinforcement in the first place) or are expressing a very narrow-minded approach that it is never appropriate to punish a dog, or to take anything away from them as a part of behaviour management.

It's a very complicated debate on what trainers exactly are. If every trainer was to say I'm a positive trainer mixed with negative punishment, people would #1 get confused cause they have no idea what that is and #2 go elsewhere because the training seems to complicated and most people want the "quick fix".

I am a positive reinforcement trainer and by no means am I narrow minded, I've used almost all forms of training, I work at a shelter with trainers who have been training over 20 years and involved with dog training clubs, all of them know positive reinforcement (rewarding good behaviours and ignoring or not allowing bad behaviours to occur) works every single time with all dogs. I have seen abusive methods (hitting, yelling, spanking, leash correcting, shock collars, prong collars, intimidation methods) being used and the more hard headed dogs take to this type of training much better then soft dogs.

Now the problem with aversive methods is you have a shy dog and you scream and yell at it, it may do the behaviour but not because it's voluntarily doing it for you/to please you. As if you found something that is reinforcing to the dog and using that to reward the dog for performing the behaviour, soon having a positive association to doing what the owner wants the dog will more often willingly listen to you because good things come when he does!

Dogs do what is most rewarding to THEM! It's been proven so many times! Why do you think dogs counter surf? They are rewarded by finding food up there! Or if they are lacking social interaction, any attention is rewarding to them.

With positive reinforcement training you don't ever need to correct your dog. The punishment is not getting the reinforcement/reward and not ALLOWING your dog to fail in the first place, if your dog can't exhibit bad behaviours how will he practice them?

This means if your dog doesn't know how to come when called and YOU let him off the leash and then doesn't come back, who's fault is that? Certainly not your dogs fault, he's doing what is rewarding, sniffing and running. The appropriate way to teach recall is to be MORE reinforcing then the environment, then of course your dog will come back to you all the time because you're better then whats out there.

Though I agree with you on some points StinkyCats..let me run this by you and let me tell you my remedy (I am certain I will not win any popularity with this one..)

I placed a very large doberman recently. He was fine as long as he knew that he was not running the household..at the beat of his drum. Fast forward...dog went into the new home. Almost immediately he started mouthing which escalated to grabbing which escalated to actually puncturing. Not happy people to say the least...but partially their fault... All the while they had a positive reinforcement trainer who suggested to 'ignore' the behaviour by turning their back on the dog. So what does one do with their arms then? Hold them in the air so that the dog jumps up to grab them?

Sorry - I totally 100% disagree with ignoring such behaviour as one can see the escalation process. Not effective.

My suggestion was to walk INTO the dog. Look ahead of the dog and keep walking right into him. He will normally back up or get out of the way. No words used...the silent head on walk.

Results - it has been 3 weeks and the dog no longer reacts in such a manner. It took 3 times of walking into him, now a click of the fingers, pointing to the mat...and the issue is resolved. Voila!

An excellent example BenMax. Because the dog found the behaviour itself to be rewarding, ignoring didn't work - with another dog it might have, but their +R trainer wasn't equipped for the possibility that a stronger reaction was needed.

An excellent example BenMax. Because the dog found the behaviour itself to be rewarding, ignoring didn't work - with another dog it might have, but their +R trainer wasn't equipped for the possibility that a stronger reaction was needed.

That's because this trainer did not initially evaluate the dog before making recommendations. This is a problem with alot of trainers. Assessing behaviour is the first formost important thing to do. Without doing so..everyone fails..and sets the dog up for failure as well. That is why I say not to be generic in your training. Mix and match.

Though I agree with you on some points StinkyCats..let me run this by you and let me tell you my remedy (I am certain I will not win any popularity with this one..)

I placed a very large doberman recently. He was fine as long as he knew that he was not running the household..at the beat of his drum. Fast forward...dog went into the new home. Almost immediately he started mouthing which escalated to grabbing which escalated to actually puncturing. Not happy people to say the least...but partially their fault... All the while they had a positive reinforcement trainer who suggested to 'ignore' the behaviour by turning their back on the dog. So what does one do with their arms then? Hold them in the air so that the dog jumps up to grab them?

Sorry - I totally 100% disagree with ignoring such behaviour as one can see the escalation process. Not effective.

My suggestion was to walk INTO the dog. Look ahead of the dog and keep walking right into him. He will normally back up or get out of the way. No words used...the silent head on walk.

Results - it has been 3 weeks and the dog no longer reacts in such a manner. It took 3 times of walking into him, now a click of the fingers, pointing to the mat...and the issue is resolved. Voila!

I totally agree that trainer was an idiot! They should've managed the dogs nipping by not allowing it to happen in the first place, you can only ignore minor annoying behaviours such as a dog pawing at you for attention or barking in the crate cause the dog wants out.

In that scenerio they should've found out why the dog was mouthing them in the first place. was it a pushy behaviour to manipulate the owners? Or was it play? If it was play, they should avoid any activities that trigger the mouthing and slowly reintroducing the play and work on redirecting the mouthing onto appropriate chewing objects. You have to manage the dog in order to train another behaviour in its place, the trainer should've figured out why the dog was mouthing.

And the problem would be solved, I've worked with dogs who mouth to the point of scarring my arms. You have to redirect the behaviour, not ignore it.

I think alot of people take "ignore bad behaviours" wrong. If you can't ignore a behaviour you're going to manage it so it doesn't happen.

I agree with Stinkycat.
Positive training (to me) is more about avoiding the use of P+ (and to a lesser extent R-) than it is about only using R+ (I have certainly utilized P- in situations where it was warranted, to good and lasting effect).

It is my experience that P+ creates more behavioral problems than it solves - even if this is years down the line. We know that animals can be very effectively trained without positive punishment, and that it has the potential to do physical or psychological damage when it is improperly performed, so why use it?

We only train very large/wild/intelligent animals with R+ and P- (cats, bears, whales, dolphins, apes, birds, elephants, . . . wolves ). I find it highly dubious that dogs are somehow more difficult (and therefore requiring of P+) to train than these.

We only train very large/wild/intelligent animals with R+ and P- (cats, bears, whales, dolphins, apes, birds, elephants, . . . wolves ). I find it highly dubious that dogs are somehow more difficult (and therefore requiring of P+) to train than these.

The difficulty with dogs versus zoo animals is that they are kept in a rich environment, form a closer social relationship with people, and are allowed privileges to the point that many are under the impression they run the household and can therefore do whatever they want. Some, sadly, are often even today, trained behind the scenes using harsher P+ than any of us could tolerate watching, though!

Many of the most effective P+ for dogs are actually displays of dominance that they can easily understand. When BenMax walked directly INTO the dog, the dog was not physically or mentally harmed in any way, but what she did still qualifies as P+.

If you allow a bear, ape, elephant, etc. the run of your house, permission to sniff your kitchen cupboards and sleep on your bed and so forth, you will find some very difficult problems. If you confine your dog to a cage, bring food and water twice a day and let him out a couple times to do tricks, you will find him only slightly more likely to challenge you as an equal than those other species.

Cats, of course, do believe in P+ and will use it on a misbehaved human.

Many of the most effective P+ for dogs are actually displays of dominance that they can easily understand. When BenMax walked directly INTO the dog, the dog was not physically or mentally harmed in any way, but what she did still qualifies as P+.

I have a perfect example of Positive Reinforcement and Positive Punishment.

The Positive reinforcement did not work in this instance, Buddy was mouthing my slippers (while on my feet) and the first thing I tried was to redirect him and then treat him...well you can figure out what happened with this...he continued to want my slippers 'cause he was going to get a treat for it.

The Positive Punishment was to send him to his bed , of course he did not want to be moved away from me and now if he grabs my slippers or my hands I calmly ask him to go to bed, he very rarely grabs either anymore. Hope this makes sense....patti

I have a perfect example of Positive Reinforcement and Positive Punishment.

The Positive reinforcement did not work in this instance, Buddy was mouthing my slippers (while on my feet) and the first thing I tried was to redirect him and then treat him...well you can figure out what happened with this...he continued to want my slippers 'cause he was going to get a treat for it.

The Positive Punishment was to send him to his bed , of course he did not want to be moved away from me and now if he grabs my slippers or my hands I calmly ask him to go to bed, he very rarely grabs either anymore. Hope this makes sense....patti

Some, sadly, are often even today, trained behind the scenes using harsher P+ than any of us could tolerate watching, though!

This is true, but not legally in North America (I know legality can be a bit of a paper tiger, but the point remains). Any animal you have seen on television (barring the obvious ), in movies, at (reputable) animal shows and zoos have all been trained without the use of P+

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

Many of the most effective P+ for dogs are actually displays of dominance that they can easily understand.

I do not subscribe to dominance theory. I believe dogs do what works and that it is our job as trainers to teach them to behave in a way that works for both of us.
I find dominance theory a little egocentric for my taste (I am NOT saying that I feel people who use it egocentric, only the theory itself - though it can attract that type of personality). The idea that a dog is constantly scheming for ways to take my authority is just too self-important. It is true that dogs are dependent on us for many of their resources, but they have their own interests that have nothing to do with us.

I also find dominance theory somewhat erroneous because dogs don't think like we do. Dogs don't have forethought or the same ideas of ownership.
Dogs live in the moment, they don't think on the future or ruminate on the past. This is why P+ is useless if improperly timed. If you punish before the transgression the dog will have no idea what you are punishing, and if you punish more than a few seconds too late the results are the same. Therefore, the idea that a dog is actively attempting to supplant you, trying to take away all of your resources for itself , is . . . well, a impossible to me.
In regards to ownership, a resource only belongs to a dog when it is directly in a dogs perceived possession, which only translates to a radius of about a few feet. Once a dog leaves the bone it is chewing on (for example), it no longer belongs to that dog. Any other dog can take it. That does not mean that dogs do not try to take resources from others, but it is not a planned or co-ordinated "hey, that's mine" it's more of an "oh, I want that."

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

When BenMax walked directly INTO the dog, the dog was not physically or mentally harmed in any way, but what she did still qualifies as P+.

Sorry but I disagree. Forcing yourself into a dog's personal space is a threatening gesture (the same way a bouncer in a pub getting into your face would make you weak in the knees . . . at least I would be ) It is an implied escalation of violence, even if you have no intention of escalating it yourself.
Harm would be a strong word, but intimidated? Maybe. And on some dogs that could mean behavioral problems down the line. One of our rescues came to us with broken ribs and afraid anything being raised above her head - there is no way we could have used any type of P+ for her behavioral problems - which included fear aggression to men.
Note: BenMax, you sound like a good, responsible trainer. It is not my intention to criticize your methods, I am only trying to explain why I feel that P+ is not a tool I will ever take out of my toolbox

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

If you confine your dog to a cage, bring food and water twice a day and let him out a couple times to do tricks, you will find him only slightly more likely to challenge you as an equal than those other species.

I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe a dog would challenge me more than a tiger in any situation .

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

Cats, of course, do believe in P+ and will use it on a misbehaved human.

Note: BenMax, you sound like a good, responsible trainer. It is not my intention to criticize your methods, I am only trying to explain why I feel that P+ is not a tool I will ever take out of my toolbox

That is perfectly ok millitntanimist. . I did say some woud not like it. I am comfortable with critism and I am ok with that. And listen..I am old school in many ways. I am totally open to new ideas and suggestions.
It is very very true that it is removing the dog from his space...but let's not forget that he invaded a human's space which is a more 'important' space than his. That's just my take on it.
It's all healthy discussion and the exchange of approach is very welcomed. Hey I am not perfect and always willing to consider options. In the case I provided..what would have been a better more positive approach. I would like to try it.

I agree with Stinkycat.
Positive training (to me) is more about avoiding the use of P+ (and to a lesser extent R-) than it is about only using R+ (I have certainly utilized P- in situations where it was warranted, to good and lasting effect).

It is my experience that P+ creates more behavioral problems than it solves - even if this is years down the line. We know that animals can be very effectively trained without positive punishment, and that it has the potential to do physical or psychological damage when it is improperly performed, so why use it?

We only train very large/wild/intelligent animals with R+ and P- (cats, bears, whales, dolphins, apes, birds, elephants, . . . wolves ). I find it highly dubious that dogs are somehow more difficult (and therefore requiring of P+) to train than these.

Ditto this

I also agree with the label of "positive trainer" being used simply because the public would be confused otherwise

And with the dobe, yes you cant ignore self reinforcing behaviors. You need to actively teach an incompatible behavior while preventing as much as possible

I also agree with the label of "positive trainer" being used simply because the public would be confused otherwise

And with the dobe, yes you cant ignore self reinforcing behaviors. You need to actively teach an incompatible behavior while preventing as much as possible

Ill try and comment more when im off this stupid tiny keypad

On a personal level, I am curious as to how you and others would remedy the dobie situation without using my rather invasive method..
I ask as this weekend I have to work on a shelter dog with similiar issue. I would really like to try your suggestion(s) for my own observation and possible 'change of ways'.

Someone claiming to be a "positive" or "positive reinforcement" trainer? To me, they either don't know what positive means (and therefore have missed out on on the teachings of the very people who coined the term positive reinforcement in the first place) or are expressing a very narrow-minded approach that it is never appropriate to punish a dog, or to take anything away from them as a part of behaviour management.

That's really cute and wrong Too bad the whole argument is based on EQUIVOCATION. We all know that 'positive' trainers are using the word in a non-technical manner.

I would rather go with a trainer who uses the methods and not the names rather than vice versa! I too am interested how these other trainers would respond to a personal space issue without responding to the dog in kind.

I thought the correct terminology was operant conditioning. Vesus classic conditioning, as explained in the link above.

Thus, to go back to the OP, I understand positive punishment to be stronger that negative punishment. To use the Dobie example, turning their backs was negative punishment. The thing lost was the human involvement of the facing human. BenMax's example of walking into the Dobe was positive punishment, it delivered an unexpected and unwelcome consequence to the dog.

For myself I believe each has value and a place in training. I should also say that I think those who are uncomfortable with their ability to judge when a positive punishment is merited might do well to shy away from using it. Some dogs may never need a positive correction or punishment. (Correction is a nicer term I think) Some might and not all owners are experienced enough to know the difference.

Then, if they end up calling in a trainer or so-called behaviourist in to help them they can ask if the trainer is familiar with operant conditioning and ask which of the four he/she employs. It's nice to know your trainer has training and experience and knows more than you do and I find just a little bit of knowledge on our part can help determine this.

On a personal level, I am curious as to how you and others would remedy the dobie situation without using my rather invasive method..
I ask as this weekend I have to work on a shelter dog with similiar issue. I would really like to try your suggestion(s) for my own observation and possible 'change of ways'.

No worries. I assume your familiar with marking and rewarding behavior? Like if you want the dog to sit, you say "yes" and treat...etc etc

what most people do not realize, is you can mark and reward for the ABSENCE of behavior. So you would reward moments where you trigger the dog on a low level and then build on it

For example, my pit bull was the same way as you describe the dobie...except it wasn't mouthing. It was licking. Obsessive, pushy licking. Removing attention did not work. So I sat her in a room and sat on the floor and did my normal "deflect the dog" routine. IN the small instant she pulled away/paused/gave up/whatever I marked and treated. Within 5 minutes of doing this, the pushy behavior disapeared. So I uped the ante slowly...leaning into her, waving my arms, standing and resitting, etc etc (one criteria at a time of course) and each time she didn't lick me/be pushy I clicked and treated (throwing threats AWAY from me (reward for position, always reward space invader dogs AWAY from you))

here is the same idea, but mouthy/bitey version. Works for adults, even tho its a "puppy" video

you break down the trigger (what causes the dog to mouth/push) into tiny steps where the dogs chance to succeed is high, and then reward success

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longblades

[For myself I believe each has value and a place in training. I should also say that I think those who are uncomfortable with their ability to judge when a positive punishment is merited might do well to shy away from using it. Some dogs may never need a positive correction or punishment. (Correction is a nicer term I think) Some might and not all owners are experienced enough to know the difference.
Then, if they end up calling in a trainer or so-called behaviourist in to help them they can ask if the trainer is familiar with operant conditioning and ask which of the four he/she employs. It's nice to know your trainer has training and experience and knows more than you do and I find just a little bit of knowledge on our part can help determine this.

THIS THIS THIS. You'd be surprised how many trainers will say "huh" and not even know what OC is...run far far away... Thats like a mechanic that can fix your broken car, yet not being able to explain how an engine works...

Smart dog learns when he doesn't have treats on him, I can still bite, which is fun in and of itself. If he does have treats, and I bite him, we get to play the treat toss game.

Extinction will not occur for self-rewarding behaviours. I like to employ a combination of discourage the undesired behaviour with reward an alternate appropriate behaviour.

??

what? where did I say that?

firstly, if the dog learns when you have treats and when you don't. You are not training with food correctly. Thats a totally separate issue

you are rewarding an incompatible behavior. In theory the reward used with be of higher value than the intristic biting behavior... We aren't waiting around of it to extinguish...

Rewarding the alternate behavior IS discouraging the unwanted behavior

Plus, the dog has already shown that attention removal is NOT aversive to the dog. Or aversive enough, so no reason to keep using it if its not working.

kids pee in diapers. We reward them for peeing in toilets. Its self reinforcing to urinate without waiting. The behavior goes away because your making the NEW behavior MORE reinforcing...its not about extinction...extinction would just be ignoring the dog...which I already said would not work for self reinforcing behavior...

Dog pees on the corner of the couch. He's been neutered, we reward him for peeing outside, reward him for a variety of indoor behaviours that he can't do at the same time as peeing on the couch, problem has not diminished. No positive punishment, no harsh words, no spanking, no grabbing his collar. What would you do?

Dog pees on the corner of the couch. He's been neutered, we reward him for peeing outside, reward him for a variety of indoor behaviours that he can't do at the same time as peeing on the couch, problem has not diminished. No positive punishment, no harsh words, no spanking, no grabbing his collar. What would you do?

am I on trial or som'thing here? Are you going to explain what you meant in your other post?

what does that have to do with the OP or benmaxs question?

I'd belly band the dog while I have him checked for a UTI. Owners need to be talked to about supervision that is obviously lacking . Couch may need to be replaced. Peeing in the same spot is indicative of the scent not being cleaned out all the way...common with furniture.

firstly, if the dog learns when you have treats and when you don't. You are not training with food correctly. Thats a totally separate issue

Some dogs have very good noses. Should I plug his nose?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Criosphynx

you are rewarding an incompatible behavior. In theory the reward used with be of higher value than the intristic biting behavior... We aren't waiting around of it to extinguish...
Rewarding the alternate behavior IS discouraging the unwanted behavior

While you are treating, the aab might be rewarding. When you stop, the dog has to make a choice. Behaving now has a reward history, but biting is still a lot of fun and it feels good on the teeth and sometimes they squeal when you do it. We need to extinguish the biting/mouthing/jumping completely, before someone gets hurt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Criosphynx

Plus, the dog has already shown that attention removal is NOT aversive to the dog. Or aversive enough, so no reason to keep using it if its not working.

That's right. -P didn't work, I want to use a non-abusive +P, but you say you can do it without. Maybe I just have more experience with persistent big bouncy rude dogs, but I've met some who enjoy themselves way too much for anything to work without me stepping in and saying "Hey! Back off and mind your manners! This behaviour is not acceptable!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Criosphynx

kids pee in diapers. We reward them for peeing in toilets. Its self reinforcing to urinate without waiting. The behavior goes away because your making the NEW behavior MORE reinforcing...its not about extinction...extinction would just be ignoring the dog...which I already said would not work for self reinforcing behavior...

Some kids are tough, too! Especially with the fancy new "dry" diapers. Punishment that may me necessary in this case might be mom/dad saying they're disappointed, trust me they usually do this at least once, or switching to big kid pants, which feel icky when wet.

Supervision is needed to interupt and redirect the dog. You can redirect and not use PP

If the dog is ONLY marking in one spot. It is the scent hes marking over you cannot get the scent out of the couch. Its not happening.

What is your objection to the belly band? Very effective for markers

Your post in response to mine earlier still makes no sense. I will repeat if the dog knows you have food you are bribing and not using food correctly. Basig the idea that my method would not work because of a flawed execution is silly. Thats like saying cars dont work but your trying to start it with a pretzel. Its a non sequiter

I just reread the thread and see your a dominance theorist. So i already know what kind of circle this will go in...

If you genuinely want help with your problem dog. Feel free to pm me otherwise i must assume this will go like most other discussions i have with dominance theorists, and dont care to participate in such silliness

My dogs have dealt with far more severe and complicated issues than "marking a couch" or being a "big pushy dog" which were fixed without PP. I do not need to defend my lack of use of it, to som'one who is so adament its necesary